linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 13/13] spi: atmel-quadspi: add support for sam9x60 qspi controller

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <25f6ee72-e6e1-7014-6e4b-abe0a1a0eebc@microchip.com>
Date:   Mon, 4 Feb 2019 14:28:27 +0000
From:   <Tudor.Ambarus@...rochip.com>
To:     <bbrezillon@...nel.org>
CC:     <broonie@...nel.org>, <robh+dt@...nel.org>, <mark.rutland@....com>,
        <Nicolas.Ferre@...rochip.com>, <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
        <Ludovic.Desroches@...rochip.com>, <Cyrille.Pitchen@...rochip.com>,
        <bugalski.piotr@...il.com>, <linux-spi@...r.kernel.org>,
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 13/13] spi: atmel-quadspi: add support for sam9x60 qspi
 controller



On 02/04/2019 04:16 PM, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 10:10:21 +0000
> <Tudor.Ambarus@...rochip.com> wrote:
> 
>> +
>> +static void atmel_qspi_sam9x60_write_regs(const struct atmel_qspi *aq,
>> +					  const struct spi_mem_op *op,
>> +					  const struct atmel_qspi_cfg *cfg)
>> +{
>> +	/* Clear pending interrupts */
>> +	(void)readl_relaxed(aq->regs + QSPI_SR);
>> +
>> +	/* Set QSPI Instruction Frame registers */
>> +	writel_relaxed(cfg->iar, aq->regs + QSPI_IAR);
>> +	if (op->data.dir == SPI_MEM_DATA_IN)
>> +		writel_relaxed(cfg->icr, aq->regs + QSPI_RICR);
>> +	else
>> +		writel_relaxed(cfg->icr, aq->regs + QSPI_ICR);
> 
> Can you use WICR here (even if ICR == WICR)?

yes, good catch.
> 
>> +	writel_relaxed(cfg->ifr, aq->regs + QSPI_IFR);
>> +}
> 
> Hm, so the only difference we have is the RICR vs ICR reg and the
> APBTFRTYP_READ vs SAMA5D2_WRITE_TRSFR bit. Not sure it deserves
> creating 2 hooks for that. Can we have something like ->has_ricr in
> the caps and then have an if/else block directly in
> atmel_qspi_set_cfg()?
> 

Correct. It is a cost of an extra if, I tried to avoid it. I like it better with
these two hooks, but if you have a strong opinion I'll do it, just confirm it again.

Thanks,
ta